tv The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Comedy Central October 31, 2012 9:00am-9:30am PDT
>> from comedy central's world news headquarters in new york this is the daily show with jon stewart. (cheers and applause) captioning sponsored by comedy central ( theme song playing ) ( cheers and applause ) >> jon: hey, everybody, welcome to the daily show. my name is jon stewart. our guest tonight, the house democratic minority leader nancy pelosi will be joining us tonight. maybe we'll talk about the election! maybe we'll fwaukt selection, which you may have heard is happening, 12 days from now in the great state of ohio. (laughter) i'm not sure if any other states are voting this year, but candidates are beginning to make their closing arguments. and if i could frame them through lyrics and music of the great britney spears, barack obama is saying to the electorate, hit me baby,
one more time. (laughter) whereas mitt romney is perhaps suggesting, i'm a genie in a bottle. (laughter) really, they're not sung by the same person, are you sure? no, they are sung by the wonders that judge on the talent show. there's two music talent shows? i have got to get myself a zune. (laughter) what are we talking about? oh, yeah, mitt romney's closing arguments. >> the government of the united states is not a good venture capitalists, he likes to pick winners and losers, about $90 billion in green energy companies like solyndra and tess la a friend of mine says he doesn't mind picking winners and losers, he likes picking losers. >> half of them, the ones invested in have gone out of business. >> jon: holy crap! is that true, half? 63 energy companies got
significant federal stimulus money and three and a half years later five have gone bankrupt. so that is half, 50%, that's amazing. that's-- what? oh, that's not the same number, hold on-- oh, it's actually 8%, man. i really have to get a zune. (laughter) and then sell it and get a calculator. wow, 8% bankruptcy rate, still, maybe that doesn't sound so bad. but compare that to mitt romney, top-notch bain capital venture capitalist. >> "the wall street journal" did some digging for today's paper it looked as 77 businesses bain invested in while romney led the firm. 22% of those companies either filed for bankruptcy or closed 8 years after the bain investment. >> jon: see, 22%! to 8% for the government.
see? (cheers and applause) the government can't even get mitt romney at picking failures. let's take a look at one of romney's nonwinners, was a company called life like which received $2 million from bain, a personal loan from mitt romney himself, shortly before it went bankrupt, bain sold it, taking the company for $15,000. wow, $15,000 down from 2 million, that's a solid 99% return minus. why? what did life like make? >> now you can get your very own my twin at my twin.com.
>> twice the fun, we have more fun. >> one of a kind my twin dolls. (laughter) >> jon: is it looking at me? why would mitt romney think anybody would want to buy a product so early close to yet so creeply far from human? why would mitt romney think that a perfectly sculpt-- settle down why would mitt romney think that a perfectly sculpt yet dead eye refugee from the island of batteries not included, why would he think millions of americans would want that?
listen, say you what want about solyndra. at least with solyndra little girls didn't worry that their solar panels would kill them while they sleep. (laughter) all right, look, so even team romney knows not every investment pays off. which is why the government's investment batting average isn't their real concern. >> even if washington could be good at picking winners and losers, which they're not, they shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. that's not the role of government. >> it's not the role of government-- this is the issue. it's a philosophical one about the role of government. the pithy essence of the center of the core of the life like doll. so where should we be putting government money? >> this is where we should be devoting our federal dollars, putting money into technology and science and research. >> and make sure we keep our
pell grant program growing. >> i believe we do have to invest in our basic infrastructure. >> having good roads and bridges and rail lines and so forth and air traffic lines are essential for a strong economy. >> jon: that's picking winners and losers! investing in roads, rail and aircraft and saying yes, to cars, trains and planes but [bleep] buy cycles. it might be a good decision but it's still picking winners and losers and government has always done that want to build a highway? which winner construction company should build it? which loser town should it bypass. (laughter) again, maybe a good choice, but it's a choice. every decision government makes picks winners and losers. or maybe mitt romney and paul ryan don't think we should have picked losers and winners in world war ii. but unlike them, i'm glad we beat hitler. (laughter)
that is the worst possible place you could take that. you're welcome. this is so obvious. i'm starting to think there is something else going on here. what is romney and ryan's real problem. >> the president would spend $90 billion on so-called green energy jobs. >> president obama is picking winners and losers based on connections, based on fads like solyndra. >> we all like wind and solar but you can't drive a car with a windmill on it. >> the past prosperity is not through solar shingles and high speed train. and by the way, i like coal. >> jon: i like it a lot! i give it to my grandkids
every christmas! (laughter) so they're picking winners and losers. so here is what it is, the republicans appear to have a principlesed stance that government shouldn't pick winners and losers when the government is run by democrats. but when it's run by them, pick away! (laughter) we'll be right back. (cheers and applause)
-- cheers plewes. welcome back. you know, a lot of congressional races going on also around the country, in fact one senate candidate from indiana just got some really good news. >> i'm supporting richard mourdock for senate. >> i can't believe they are picking winners and losers like that mourdock just snalinged this plumb endorsement last week. let's check in and see what this brash young republican is all about. >> i believe that life begins at conception. the only exception i have for, to have an a dortion is in that case for the life of the mother. i struggled with it myself for a long time, but i came to realize life is that gift from god and i think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that god intended to happen.
>> jon: well that brings us to yet another install am of our surprisingly recurring series republican candidates said what about rape now? (laughter) now i am not-- i am not a pollster, or a pundit. but here's how you know your campaign may have veered slightly into the weeds. when 1 week after your party's leader endorses your candidacy you have to call a press conference to say this. >> i absolutely abhor violence. i abhor any kind of sexual violence. i abhor rape. and i am absolutely confident as i stand here that the god that i worship abhors violence, abhors sexual violence, and on hour shall -- abhors rape. >> jon: so now that i've cleared up that i do not worship a rape loving
diety-- (laughter) let me just reiterate mourdock 2012. whooo! wow! well, i hope you enjoyed that romney endorsement while it lasted, mourdock, because you can blow the kiss good-bye. >> mr. mourdock's comments do not reflect governor romney's views. we disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest-- increst but still support him. >> jon: not often do you hear someone say i disagree with your views on rape and increst but -- -- incest. >> i disagree with your views on rape and incest but not a deal breaker. (laughter) well, if romney wasn't willing to throw mourdock under the bus the same couldn't be said for your friends at morning joe. >> it is remarkable what republican candidates have said this year. >> i know.
>> regarding abortion, regarding rape. >> jon: finally, republican admits fellow republicans is renug-- repugnant. please, continue with the moral stand you take. >> i'm a pro-life guy. but they are driving away so many swing voters. >> jon: no, that's not the problem. that's not the problem. no, no, no. the problem is the beliefing of the things, not that he-- the problem isn't that he violated the first law of the fetus club which is don't talk about fetus club, like that's not-- because it's the idea. i mean where does mourdock get his crazy fringe ideas about rape and abortion anyway? i done know, maybe from mitt romney's running mate, paul ryan who cosponsored a sanctity of human life act so severe it not only could outlaw all abortions but also could effectively ban in-vitro fertilization or the platform of the republican party-- calls for a human life amendment to the constitution.
nothing in there about exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother or feelings of swing voters. in other words, accord together republican party platform, and the man who wants to be a heartbeat away from a presidency, if a woman wants to have a baby, in-vitro fertilization, she cannot. rape, she has to. no wonder they buried it on page 14, rather than than splashing it across the cover. we'll be right back.fpt8y(y(ylbg
(cheers and applause) >> jon: my guest tonight is the house democratic minority leader and served california's 8th district. please welcome back to the program nancy pelosi! (cheers and applause) how are you? thank you for being here with us. (cheers and applause) let me ask you a question, so in the senate when you are-- you don't have the majority in the senate, everything is geared towards you being able to stop the opposite party. does the house have any mechanisms for the minority party to slow down legislation or not-- how has your role changed from
having the majority to not. >> well, the power of the speaker of the house is awesome. it is very different-- . >> jon: like thor, we say? when you hold the gavel, thunder? >> sometimes more damage than that under the republicans. but it is-- it is, it's a different, it's just completely different. and so what you have to do is just win the house for the democrats so that the president has a congress that will work with him. >> jon: so that's the only thing that you can do is -- >> yeah, pretty much. what i like is what president lincoln said, he said public sentiment is everything. so just take it to the public and that is what elections are about. and that's why on this ballot it's not just democrat, republicans, just names on the ballot, it's everything on the ballot, hard fought rights for women are on the ballot, the middle class is on the ballot, the american dream is on the ballot, medicare is on the ballot. >> jon: are you confident that the democrats-- you know, i follow the polls,
nothing else. (laughter) i am not an issues guy. i like numbers. they say that the senate will be very close in terms of democratic control, republican control but that the house really looks pretty clearly going to stay in the republican control. >> that's what they say. but that's why we have elections. it isn't determined by pundits t is ermby the people rz. >> jon: you are saying we should go ahead with the election. >> i think we should. >> jon: kind of a bold stance. >> it will be very interesting. your segment shows you very clearly the differences of opinion in our country. and you know, it's interesting because romney-- governor romney has endorsed personhood amendment in mississippi. >> jon: i remember that. >> and even the people of mississippi rejected that position. >> jon: well, romney also rejected that position as well. >> well-- the president calls it romnesia. i have my own, what i call
mittology. >> jon: slunt all that be my job, shouldn't i be one the one thinking up these very clever things. but how about that, you guys do that-- let me just go right to the law. (laughter) dow consider-- i find that it seems like president obama is not seemingly the head of the democratic party in the way that, let's say-- he is big on separation of-- he hassle vated the legislative power, to some extent. >> well, it is a question of shared values. what is it we are there to do. it's to the about having a job, it's about doing the job for the american people. >> jon: right. >> and when we were there and he was in-- when we were in the majority with the president, we were able to accomplish a great deal for the american people. when the republicans came in they said that the president
never, this does never work for you because that is when we're going to work with you, it just wouldn't going to happen. so contrary when we worked with president bush as the majority democrat so this is something quite different what they are doing. >> jon: you think it is an unusual strategy that they have-- . >> and bad for the country. but the fact s as i said, all those things are on the ballot. so this is a very important election. we cannot accept, as i said, we can't listen to somebody saying you can't win. we don't agonize over that. we organize to get everybody to vote so that president has a clear mandate and a democratic congress. >> jon: do you think that the democrats have done enough to improve the account ability and efficiency of government? if you are's going to be the party that advocates for stronger government intervention for types of issues and things, you don't hear an awful lot about that, efficiency, account ability, the idea of redundant paperwork or redundant
bureaus or that type of thing, like just more governance rather than role. >> during president clinton's term as you know, you may recall, vice president gore was in charge of the we invent government initiative. >> jon: what is that name again? i was making a joke. (laughter) >> okay. maybe i missed that. >> jon: no, you got it i think you got it. >> but under president obama, everything is-- almost everything that can be subjected to scrutiny and review has been. and the statistics will show that there wasn't a growth of regulation during president obama. there has been a reduction. but this is about the election and what goes forward. >> jon: for you it is more philosophical this time t this is a big philosophical election. >> when i say-- all of our names are on the ballot but that is so unimportant, even democratic and republican. what is important is that we save medicare, the republicans want to sever the medicare guarantee, end it as a guarantee for
seniors. that to me is the most important thing that is on the ballot when you think of the impact it has on seniors and their families. and you know what, they misrepresent it. they say, you know, they reverse it they say we took money, spent on obama-- not true. >> jon: they say they are saving it because it is going bankrupt so they are going to save it. >> but that is exactly what we did. we took the money to save it. they took the money and put it, gave tax cuts to wealthy people. millionaires over medicare. that's a lot of what the election is about. respect for women or not that is more mittology. >> jon: if that is what the election is, that would be a stark contrast. >> and then the whole idea. >> jon: i think they would push back on the idea is about whether or not they respect women but i understand. >> and it is. and women have just about the most to lose, whether you are a woman of child bearing age or a senior women, in my case -- did --. >> jon: not being either one i'm not qualify to answer.
(laughter) >> well, that's good you say that because my republican colleagues say that i think i know more about having babies, having five children myself. they say nancy pelosi thinks she knows more about having babies than the pope. (laughter) >> jon: wow. well, to that end, i know more about sitting in my underwear drinking beer than the pope. (laughter) >> but you recognize that, and that's important. >> jon: i absolutely do. and continue to recognize that as well. good luck to you. thank you so much for stopping by. nancy pelosi, ladies and gentlemen. (cheers and applause) ,x